Before anything, I admire Rajkummar Rao, Hrithik Roshan, Ranbir Kapoor and Emraan Hashmi as actors. I just can’t imagine them as Sourav Ganguly, Emperor Akbar, Lord Rama or Mohammad Azharuddin.
It is hardly a new criticism. Actors cast in Bollywood biographical roles almost never look like the people they portray. The issue has, in fact, become the defining trait of Hindi biopics over time. When it comes to casting an actor who matches the look, personality and body language of the subject, filmmakers mostly seem to assume the audience will suspend disbelief.
The issue comes into focus again with the recent first-look poster launch of Rajkummar Rao’s Dada: The Sourav Ganguly Story.Rao, a National Award winner for playing the slain lawyer-activist Shahid Azmi in Hansal Mehta’s 2012 biopic, Shahid, will doubtlessly score with the drama quotient in the master cricketer’s life, but no sooner did the first look drop, social media was heatedly discussing how different the actor looks from the sporting icon. While the internet agrees Rao is among the finest actors of his generation, the issue is: Can he evoke the essence of being Sourav Ganguly?
‘DADA’ RELOADS THE CONVERSATION
Ganguly was a commanding athlete in his playing days, nearly six-foot tall per Cricinfo,and with broad shoulders. Whether walking out to bat or addressing a press conference, he projected aristocratic assuredness. His elegance at the crease and slightly aloof demeanour became intrinsic aspects of his personality.
Rao strikes a contrast. He built his career playing down-to-earth everymen. Lean, compact and understated at around five-feet-seven, his natural body language is restrained rather than imposing. Even after make-up and hairstyle adjustments, the difference in facial structures and personality are hard to ignore.
Curiously, the conversation around Dada erupted even before another major casting debate subsided. Ranbir Kapoor’s casting as Lord Rama in Ramayana has continued dividing the audience ever since the film’s first glimpse dropped. Social media noted how Ayodhya Kaand of Ramayana the et Kapoor has a fair complexion. Indian gods were never believed to have Kapoor’s gym-toned, Westernised physique, others said.
The problem refuses to go away because Bollywood biopics rarely treat physical authenticity as a priority while recreating real or mythological characters. Few modern Bollywood biopics illustrate the fact better than Ashutosh Gowariker’s Jodhaa Akbar. Hrithik Roshan is a handsome star and undoubtedly talented as an actor. But he is not Emperor Akbar.
IT’S ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY
Akbar has been described quite differently by chroniclers than what Hrithik portrayed. The Portuguese Jesuit priest, Father Antonio Monserrate, who visited the emperor’s court in 1580, described Akbar as having a medium height and strongly built with a broad chest and wheatish complexion. The Britannica website describes Akbar thus: “Physically, he was strong and could withstand hardship on campaigns. Although he is recorded to have been no more than 5 feet 7 inches (170 cm) tall, he impressed observers as a dominating personality.”
None of that mattered. Jodhaa Akbar needed superstar Hrithik’s box office pull to score commercially. Nearly two decades ago, the film raked in around Rs 120 crore and was declared a superhit upon release. That’s all box-office history needs to remember.
You spot a similar disconnect in Azhar and The Legend of Bhagat Singh. Emraan Hashmi never really captured cricketer Mohammad Azharuddin’s Hyderabadi accent in speech, understated swagger and signature body language despite sincerely trying. Also, facial structure apart, there was a glaring difference in height – Azharuddin was over five feet, 10 inches tall while Hashmi is said to be around five-feet-seven.
Ajay Devgn’s Bhagat Singh act was imposing enough to win him a National Award as Best Actor, but he bore absolutely no resemblance to the martyr. Notably, Bhagat Singh was 23 when he was executed by the British, while Devgn was in his 30s when he played the freedom fighter.
WHY THE DISCREPANCY CONTINUES
The question, then: Why is Bollywood okay with such discrepancies? The answer primarily lies in commerce.
Bollywood rarely approaches biopics as historical documents. These films are commercial entertainers first, life stories afterwards. The industry does not look for compelling lives to adapt for the screen; it looks for compelling stories that can be sold. Once a subject is selected, the next calculation is normally about money: Which actor can recover the investment and ensure profit given the budget?
That explains why Jodhaa Akbar, mounted on an estimated budget of around Rs 40 crore back in 2008, requires a superstar like Hrithik Roshan to topline the cast. By contrast, Dada is being positioned in the mid-budget space, making Rajkummar Rao – a bankable performer with strong multiplex appeal – a practical choice, over an actor who would possibly be Ganguly’s physical match.
Bankability outweighs resemblance. Screen presence outweighs authenticity. In Bollywood biopics, the actor is expected to bring audiences into theatres first; historical accuracy is negotiable.
There is another, equally important reason.
The mass audience mainstream Bollywood caters to often does not care about authenticity.
WHAT’S THE AUDIENCE TAKE?
Many among the masses have never known anything about the real-life subject being shown on the screen. Rather, their emotional attachment lies solely with the star portraying the character.
There is, however, a price for this thought process. When films depend primarily on star power, they start to compensate by simplifying the screenplay.
Take Meghna Gulzar’s Sam Bahadur (2023). Vicky Kaushal captured Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s wit, diction and mannerisms with precision. Yet, many felt the screenplay reduced one of India’s greatest military minds into a succession of highlight incidents in his life instead of offering a layered exploration of the man.
Similarly, Mary Kom (2014) benefited from Priyanka Chopra’s glamour, but the narrative often veered towards conventional storytelling tools such as melodrama rather than explore nuances.
WHAT’S THE HOLLYWOOD SCENE LIKE?
Ironically, Hollywood has mostly travelled in the opposite direction. The finest biopics coming from Los Angeles studios begin with the character before arriving at the actor.
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023) found its essence in Cillian Murphy, whose gaunt features and piercing gaze echoed J. Robert Oppenheimer, widely known as Father of the Atomic Bomb. Murphy was always a respected actor, Oppenheimer elevated him to an entirely different league.
When Steven Spielberg cast Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler in his powerful World War II drama of 1993, Schindler’s List, the actor was barely known internationally. Neeson became a global star only after bringing alive the emotional complexity of the role.
David Fincher’s decision to cast Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network (2010) wasn’t based on the actor’s star power either. Rather, Eisenberg’s casting owed itself to the actor’s ability to bring alive Zuckerberg’s mannerisms, awkward intensity and clipped speech.
Similarly, James Mangold transformed Joaquin Phoenix into country legend Johnny Cash for Walk The Line (2005) only because the actor matched the singer’s personality, long before Phoenix became a star internationally.
What unites these casting calls is not merely good acting. It is the philosophy behind the casting. Hollywood generally asks, “Who is the apt actor for the role?” before going on to consider, “Who can sell the tickets?” Bollywood usually reverses the order.
Rajkummar Rao may yet surprise the audience with his portrayal of Sourav Ganguly. Great actors are known to overcome first impressions. The problems with Bollywood biopics, however, aren’t likely to go away any time soon.
– Ends
